WW3 compared to WW2

For instance, 5000 ships were there for the invasion at Normandy.
MILLIONS of troops were on the ground fighting (from each country)...Millions of them...

Now when you think about it. There aren't many countries that have something like 2000 ships built for war (can you name some?) I mean have a look at
the best military int he world... the US.. They have what? 14 carrier groups in total which comprises of what? a Carrier or 2, a few destroyers, a
couple submarines, etc.

The only country i can really only start seeing getting high in the numbers is China.

What about the air? In WW2 there would be 1000 bombers in the air at one time flying over a German city bombing it out of existance. How many armies
have aircraft in that sort of numbers now? Or even continually upgrading the aircraft in those numbers? I mena for instance, the USA are making the
Joint Strike Fighter and the Raptor... But how many are they going to build of each? a couple hundred or so.

How useful is that going to be if a large nation, or a few wars break out and it turns into a world war?

Hitler invaded Poland with 1.25 million men. This started the beginning of WW2. And that number of men wasn't most of his army.

Check out the figures for WW2. (as i probably should have researched this better and created a better quality post...but it's 11:51 here and about to
go to bed). The Figures are huge compared to what there is today.

IF WW3 eurupts.... what the hell will the figures be?
How long would it take to get sufficient numbers up to logistically defeat a certian enemy? etc?

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
one thing to remeber is that WWII started as a conventional war but was ended by ushering in a new age of warfar : ATOMIC.

the reality is today you dont need an army of 1 million to take out 1 million, all you need is the right weapons.

what if hitler had the atomic bomb at the start of the war???

Agreed on the weapons point. Precision is the main reason that an airforce does not need 500+ bombers to take out targets anymore. Back then, you had
to put that much steel on the target to insure damage. Now there is GPS, laser guidance, etc. Or you can let the missles do the flying and the bombing
for you. ie. Tomahawks. The next generation seems to be pointing more and more towards drones or robotic craft on much larger scales than currently
seen now. You can always replace a piece of equipment, but once a trained person is lost, they are lost for good. Seems logical to me.

Also, there have been great strides made in logistics. (Imagine if the allies had access to those huge modern hovercraft-transport craft at D-Day?)

I still think in the (hopefully never happening) possible event of WWIII, there will be large amounts of troops raised again, but in much more
streamlined uses. What is the point of sending a large force across the world to take out large targets when you can send a small squadron of planes
to fly there, take out the targets accurately and then fly back under 24 hours?(ala' the B2 squadrons flying from Missouri to Afgahnistan and back)
That kind of capability was just a far off dream in WWII.

Nothing will ever replace the foot-soldier IMO, but the days of the huge flotillas and invasion forces are numbered.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
World War 2 was big. It was massive on the scale of wars.

Well, also consider that most western industrial nations were mobilized for war, iow entire industries were used for war production. Also, now the US
spend c.f >4 percent of GDP on defense, whereas at the worst in WWII I think it got to around 33 percent.

How many armies have aircraft in that sort of numbers now?

Why should any military have such large numbers now? In WWII, it was necesitated for the allies because the axis built up such large numbers. The
terrorists don't have fleets and brigades, they just have cells.

Or even continually upgrading the aircraft in those numbers? I mena for instance, the USA are making the Joint Strike Fighter and the Raptor... But
how many are they going to build of each? a couple hundred or so.

How useful is that going to be if a large nation, or a few wars break out and it turns into a world war?
YOu mean on teh scale of WWII? Well, there was militarization in germany prior to the war, so that makes things rather different. Britain and the
US didn't have a buildup, but were able to hold the enemy off while they did mobilize and only then did they have those huge numbers. The same thing
would happen now.

IF WW3 eurupts.... what the hell will the figures be?

Utterly different. Any nation like nazi germany, or an alliance like the axis, wouldn't be fought with conventional means. Global Thermonuclear war
is the only appropriate response to that sort of thing. That was the prepared for response for a soviet invasion of eastern europe. Thats why WWIII
already happened, it was the Cold War. I rather like the usage of WWIV for the terror wars. Its a new age of warfare, the widely destructive globe
encompassing wars of the past are over. Nuclear Detterence prevents any country capable of building such large armies from ever using them. Nukes,
however, aren't very effective at minor states and terrorist cells. The Iranians for example, don't have power projection capabilities like the US
or any western power, and are at best a regional power. But on the other hand, nukes aren't effective against them, because their leadership
considers that the country has 'expendable population'. I recall in a news article one of their leaders or mullahs saying 'what does it matter if
a nuclear bomb destroys a million of us? There are millions more'.

These aren't normal states than can be affected by detterence.

BTW.. Without nukes. Just say no nukes were involved.

Oh, I shoulda read til the end before I started responding. But 'no nukes' isn't very reasonable. I would say tho that, if for some unthinkable
reason the US or some other major power wanted to mobilize to WWII levels, that they'd be able to do it faster than before. Logistics are much aided
by modern information processing systems and inventory control methods than in the pre-computer WWII era.

During the bombings of london the germans aimed for Churchills bunker but they didn't even touch it , How many Planes did they use to bomb london?
100?200?All that to bomb one little bunker in one big city. Just look at the start of the Iraq War, How many cruise missles did we shot over there to
hit the buildings we wanted? What like 10-20? If we were still using inacurate crap like back in the old days how many planes would we of sent over to
Baghdad? About a 100 right?

Well I believe the next war will be so expensive that the number of planes,boats,armies Will be kept pretty low, Well not to low.

F.Y.I More Air Men died over Europe then all the marines that dead in the Pacific war.

There wouldnt be a London, Moscow,New york,Washington anymore and Germany would have controlled most of the world.

Which ever country had the bomb first could have taken over the world. For all the people that think America wants to take over the world They passed
up the best chance they ever had at the end of WW2. Most of the major powers of the world lied in ruin the US was pretty much untouched they were the
only ones that had the bomb. It would be years before Russia would have stolen the A-bomb nothing could have stopped a power that was the only one
armed with the A-Bomb.

be4 ww2, the allies, had no army, cept ussr, (but it was scattered about) like was said be4, all the thousands of tanks, planes, ships, and men, were
made and trained for the war, we needed them, in a state of massive war today, the same would happen, if there was a nuclear exchange, the amount of
troops wouldnt matter. 90+ % of life would die. shadow, i dont think the usa coulda taken the world on. if the usa tried it, it would be the world
against the usa, and most of the u.s troos were in europe and they would have been overrun by the soviets and other allied forces with the brits, and
remember, we didnt have that many atom bombs, or any ICBMs. i even doubt the ability of the usa to get bombers into soviet union or whereever. germany
was already destroyed. and so was italy, but mayb we could have bombed the british, since we had our Air force there already but thats it, Canada
mayb, but we wouldnt have been able to take them on once our troops in europe were overrun. that being said, the only reason we were able to bomb
japan with atom bombs, was becuz theer AF and navy was practically destroyed. the soviet unions wasnt. it woulda been disastrous...

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
i dont think the usa coulda taken the world on. if the usa tried it, it would be the world against the usa, and most of the u.s troos were in europe
and they would have been overrun by the soviets and other allied forces with the brits, and remember, we didnt have that many atom bombs, or any
ICBMs.

Certainly enough to destroy soviet command cities and drop on main battle lines of soviet troops. I bet teh germans would've jumped into the fray,
they seemed to have hated the soviets a little more than the americans. As for the brits, why would they get involved?

Also, whatever the number of US troops in Europe were, the US was still able to fight a viscious war in the pacific.

even doubt the ability of the usa to get bombers into soviet union or whereever.

Why? The germans had been able to bomd soviet cities (tho, you're definitely right to a degree, it was difficult to get very far.)

but we wouldnt have been able to take them on once our troops in europe were overrun.

The british army, well effective, isn't very large at that point, and I have to wonder as to what fighting capability they would have if London,
York, Edinborough, Mancester, Liverpool, Reading, and a couple of other cities were destroyed.

the soviet unions [air force]wasnt. it woulda been disastrous...

The soviets were not able to prevent every german bomber from gettign to their cities, their airforce had been destroyed also no? It was their
integrated city air defense that was effective at protecting the cities. But what would that matter, a nuke can be delivered by artillery or even
truck.

The real question isn't the Soviets, in my opinion, its the British. They still have the Empire at this point, and Australian battle fleets could
cause instability in the pacific while canadian troops so close to home would certainly be able to invade and seize parts of the north of the border
states. But would the british attack? Especially if the Americans were offering to ally with them? A sort of joint empire? Would'nt be too
insensible, the Americans are nuclear and are basically the only industrialized nation not wrecked by the war, except perhaps india, which was
certainly taking issue at being a colony. Perhaps the british (Churchill was a big supporter of the empire no) would be willing to accept an american
hegemony as long as the US helped them keep the empire together. Perhaps they would say, better an American hegemony than a resurgnet Nazi or Soviet
or any other comparable one.

Not bad Nygdan, I agree with lots of what you said, especially the bottom portion.

I would like to point out, that the Russian air force was pathetic no matter how you looked at it. The reason Germany had trouble bombing long
distances was because they simply didn’t have long range bombers. It was basically a turkey shoot. The opening days of the war, the Luftwaffe
decimated 1/3 of the Soviet Union’s air force on the ground! Sure, the later years the Russians had lots of Yaks, and IL2’s, but they had yet to
develop an effective doctrine.

So basically, our Mustangs escorting a few flying fortresses with nukes wouldn’t possess a major problem.

But back to your original topic about WW3 and troop/tank/plane numbers…

I really think it would depend on who’s fighting who. If China invaded the under belly of Russia, millions of soldier, thousands of tanks, and
thousands of planes would be used. Russia would throw every able bodied man and T-80/T-90 tank they had at them. Artillery would also play a major
role I believe. If the United States is involved, you would probably see a 6-8 hundred thousand men, with a few thousand tanks and planes. In WW2
numbers, looks like the USA would be a “nuisance.” But in today world, this expeditionary force would be worth 10 million Chinese soldiers.

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
shadow, i dont think the usa coulda taken the world on. if the usa tried it, it would be the world against the usa, and most of the u.s troos were
in europe and they would have been overrun by the soviets and other allied forces with the brits, and remember, we didnt have that many atom bombs, or
any ICBMs. i even doubt the ability of the usa to get bombers into soviet union or whereever. germany was already destroyed. and so was italy, but
mayb we could have bombed the british, since we had our Air force there already but thats it, Canada mayb, but we wouldnt have been able to take them
on once our troops in europe were overrun. that being said, the only reason we were able to bomb japan with atom bombs, was becuz theer AF and navy
was practically destroyed. the soviet unions wasnt. it woulda been disastrous...

Granted we pretty much used up our atomic bomb supply in Japan but more could have been built long before anyone eles could make any. As for
delivering the A-bomb I dont see that as a problem , the US had the best bomber in the war by far. The B-29 Superfortress with a Ceiling of 31,850 and
a Range of 5,830 miles most planes at the time could even touch the thing. I would see Russia as a biggest threat but if one side had atomic weapons
and the other side didnt it wouldnt really matter in the end. Patton really wanted to keep rolling in WW2 right threw Russia but Roosevelt and
Churchill didnt give Patton his wish. Russia wasnt in the greatest shape after WW2 granted they were better off then the Germans but they were only
fighting on one front. Out of the Allies Russia by far lost the most men.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.